High speed rail is moving forward in California, but progress is pretty stagnant around the rest of the country. Still, there are a lot of proposals out there, and when placed on one map, they form an impressive rail network. This map was put together by California Rail Map, led by Alfred Twu, which combined existing proposals from high speed rail advocacy groups around the US. Twu described his process for the Guardian:

Instead of detailing construction phases and service speeds, I took a little artistic license and chose colors and linked lines to celebrate America's many distinct but interwoven regional cultures.

The US High Speed Rail Association, a nonprofit trade association, predicts a network similar to this one could be in place by 2030.

Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood has called for a large HSR network, saying it could link 80 percent of Americans within 25 years, for $500 billion.
Based on this map, starting in Los Angeles, a high speed train could get to New York, with stops in Denver and Chicago, in well under 18 hours.

Considering the significant funding and political will any large rail project needs, it's hard to imagine all this will be built. But Robert Cruickshank at the California High Speed Rail Blog argues just visualizing the network is a good thing:

But before the Interstate Highway System was authorized, it had to first be conceptualized on a map. This map gets us closer to the goal of an interstate high speed rail system by showing us what it looks like. And envisioning such a system is the first step toward building it.

I see this as another attempt to make us like Europe when Amtrak is a failure.

Direckshun

02-09-2013 08:11 PM

Just on a visceral level, I really love that idea. I really do.

Zilla has made a very good case for HSR in the past on this forum.

RealSNR

02-09-2013 08:14 PM

Cheyenne, WY gets a route but some places like Sioux Falls and Billings don't? Why build a rail to Cheyenne at all then?

I'm not a big boner for the rail system. I just think it's neat to look at some of the ideas out there. Which cities get a stop on the rail and which ones don't, etc.

BucEyedPea

02-09-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR
(Post 9390556)

Cheyenne, WY gets a route but some places like Sioux Falls and Billings don't? Why build a rail to Cheyenne at all then?

I'm not a big boner for the rail system. I just think it's neat to look at some of the ideas out there. Which cities get a stop on the rail and which ones don't, etc.

If it ever did come to fruition, those stops would be determined by politicking at the federal level—just as they were during the previous RR era. That's why they wound up be so inefficient compared to the private RR line Hill built. And the left has a never to cry about gerrymandering.

HonestChieffan

02-09-2013 08:25 PM

If it won't turn a profit it bullshit.

Bewbies

02-09-2013 08:30 PM

A train that goes 220mph will surely compete with that $79 ticket you pay for on an airplane that flies 500mph.

mlyonsd

02-09-2013 08:35 PM

If this made sense we'd already be doing it.

Stupid idea.

theelusiveeightrop

02-09-2013 08:40 PM

Rail in a LARGE country will not be economically feasible.

CoMoChief

02-09-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bewbies
(Post 9390594)

A train that goes 220mph will surely compete with that $79 ticket you pay for on an airplane that flies 500mph.

Well theoretically it's good for like KC-STL or STL-CHI. Maybe even KC-CHI depending on the inconveniences of flying (security/baggage check/boarding an hr prior/length of drive to KCI out in BFE) compared to the 2.5hr train ride alone.

That's about it though.

Overall is it cost effective? Absolutely not.

Dave Lane

02-09-2013 09:33 PM

Awesome!

CrazyPhuD

02-09-2013 09:37 PM

So which line is the John Galt line?(come on no one else said it first??? And I still have yet to read the book lol)

Rain Man

02-09-2013 11:31 PM

If the train west of Denver hit 220 mph, I wonder how much air it would get when it hit the continental divide.

I read an article a while back that I found quite interesting. It said that around 1910, the U.S. had a big decision on whether they would build the infrastructure for an automobile-based system or a train-based system. They chose the automobile, obviously, but the article intimated that it was really a judgment call with no clear winning argument. If they had gone the other way we'd have a lot more trains and probably no interstate highway system.

Psyko Tek

02-09-2013 11:38 PM

job crator.
but will need to be cheaper or better than airliones
party car on long distance ?
a circle k car that sells regular priced stuff?

never been anywhere on rail

Inmem58

02-09-2013 11:53 PM

Millions of people are scared to fly, I'm sure they will be willing to pay an extra $20 to ride the rail. Although, I would assume it would cost less to ride the rail.